Bill Clinton on Obama: 'A Few Years Ago, This Guy Would Have Been Carrying Our Bags'

Great news for John McCain!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0Eawu8pQxRI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Someone said that "a source" said that Ted Kennedy told him something...riiiiight.

 

This might have been a somewhat effective attack meme 4 years ago. The expiration date has passed, though. Feel free to bust out some Rev Wright or Ayers references though. While you're at it, go for broke and ask for a birth certificate.

 

Well, Obama's results have included:

HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT than when he started
LOWER HOUSEHOLD INCOME than when he started
DOUBLED THE PRICE OF GASOLINE since he started
Oversaw the National Debt EXPLODE BY 5 TRILLION DOLLARS


Heckuva job, Obama. Scrawny and wimpy as Obama may be, I'd say he'd have been better at carrying Slick Willie's bags, yes.

 

Oh Obama, and his macro-economy FOMC-drugging powers.

 

BIGOTex

 

Obama's anti-business policies have put a strain on the US economy, which has in turn led Bernanke to run those printing presses, which in turn affects the price of oil and ultimately gasoline. Simple, yet obvious relationship. Of course, standing in the way of oil & gas production every chance he gets doesn't help the supply picture much either. Obama has been a lucky dog in that the technology to exploit unconventional resources (such as shales) has helped to increase oil production on land in the US -- if it weren't for energy companies figuring out how to do that, I'd shudder to think where the price of oil would be today in the US. Obama has to go -- the man has failed and is incapable of fixing the mess.

 

i really thought someone pulled up an old thread from four years ago. what's the point

 

Oh yeah, Bernanke's hand was forced by Obama's terrible fiscal cliffs, and him bankrupting Lehman Brothers.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9bZkp7q19f0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

you know what? Maybe we should sink those Europeans. All that optimism and speculation AIN'T NO GOOD FEEERR OIL.

 

Bigtexxx starts thread to say Clinton is a racist, then in the same post says that the only good things about President Obama are that he can read from a teleprompter and that he's half white. SMH.

 

2007 and 2008 called. They reminded me that the dollar was being devalued then because of those same printing presses. In case you don't recall, Obama was not in office at that point. While Obama certainly has not slowed it down, it is not a problem that is unique to Obama.

 

So Clinton is overly competitive: which I think we all knew after the Lewinsky scandal, and old and Southern enough to have grown up in racially stratified societies. Bush was all of those things and a dumb, lazy, spoiled ******* to boot.

Pretty sure Barack heard and saw stuff far worse than this at Columbia, Harvard Law or any of the other competitive, class-conscious, predominantly white environments he's been in.

 

This is from Mr. Conservative, the local blogger who is an extreme conservative from my local newspaper:

"Barack Obama remains fixated on blaming the economic problems that Obama has clearly created on President George W. Bush. The Bush Recession officially ended in June 2009. The Obama Stimulus, also known as “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,” was in place but did not start to be implemented until after June 2009. It was a few months before the highly destructive impact of the Obama Stimulus became seriously apparent to all. Unemployment rose, and U-3 has not dropped below 8.1%."

My retort:

Well, now, May, you've made even more of a case for Obama and you don't even realize it. Rather than using February 2009 as a starting point, you use June 2009 as the start for the "end" of the Bush recession.

So, here's what happened: UE stood at 9.5% in June 2009. Following this, within 5 months, UE goes up to 10%, where it peaks. That's a mere 0.5%- that's a very small percentage, unless you don't understand math. Now, following this, UE goes from 10% to 8.3% as it stands now. Let's use 250 million as the population in the U.S. able to work (probably not exact, but it's a close ballpark). So, 9.5% of that is 23.75 million. Now, it goes up to 10%, which is, obviously, 25 million. Then, it goes down to 8.3%, which is 20.75 million. So, stimulus loses 1.25 million jobs and gains 4.25 million. Result? a 3 million net gain in employment. You see, I was willing to give you Republicans from the first full month of Obama's tenure to now- 8.3% to 8.3%.

But if you want to use June 2009, then it's 9.5% to 8.3%. So, unemployment during this period has shown a net decrease, and this is where he ranks among Presidents since 1980:

1. Reagan 2

2. Clinton 2

3. Obama 1

4. Clinton 1

5. Reagan 1

6. Bush 1

7. Bush 2

8. HW Bush 1

So, in terms of overall UE performance, comparatively speaking, Obama is #3 after Reagan's 2nd term and Clinton's 2nd. Thank you, Mr. May!!! You've made Obama look better!!!!


SO, S**K ON THAT, LITTLE TEXX AND TRADE GEORGY! :grin:

 

The breadth and depth of quantitative easing exploded under Obama -- largely as a result of the failure of the US economy to bounce back after the recession. Obama's policies of higher taxes, more regulation, and more litigation suffocated the economy, and continue to do so. Business owners, under full scale attack by Obama, are afraid to invest in capital projects and add staff (jobs). As a result, the Fed must pump unprecedented amounts of dollars into the system and this jacks up the price of oil and therefore gasoline. That's how it works, and yes, it is specific to Obama. We've never seen central banking balance sheets so overextended. Sorry.

 

Heh, a "trader" trying to talk macro-economics.

I'll indulge your unsubstantiated empty talk in the interests of correcting a few flagrantly fallacious points.

Your analysis fails on a number of levels---firstly, by misidentifying why Bernanke pursued QE in the first place (the largest private market failure in American history), and secondly by arguing this is an "Obama-specific" scenario. The second is linked with the first, because the BoE has been as aggressive if not even more on monetary policy, and if the ECB had not been a quasi-central bank (and continues to be), the same could be said of it (you can definitely see Draghi straining at the bits, what with loans being given to Greek banks that were eventually running on negative equity). Given how the British have run their economy to the ground (with Ryan-like policy fiscal cliffs), it provides an interesting comparison point for an economy that has been relatively well-stewarded, and one that hasn't. Of course the economies with the best levels of stewardship are those, like Canada and Sweden, that embraced the mixed economy and tightly regulated financial markets, and they have been correspondingly rewarded with the flexibility to maintain tighter monetary policy, and the low yields that come with trustworthiness in the global bond markets.